I still don’t understand why we were told that dumping the body was in tradition with Islamic law. I also don’t understand why there were so many versions of events out in those early days. Sure, the basic story stayed the same; Pakistan, bin Laden, Marines, raid, 9/11 – but details of shoot-outs (or not), female hostages (or not), an armed bin Laden (or not), who could see what and when (or not) at the White House and other tidbits of info were flipping like a coin at a football game.

Last week the case against the National Defense Authorization Act was presented to a judge in New York. One of the plaintiffs in the case has decided to sue the Obama administration claiming that by simply doing his job he could be arrested and detained indefinitely due to the nature of his work, reporting. Chris Hedges, columnist for TruthDig, joins us to explain how his day in court went.

President Obama on Friday signed into law a bill that extends three Patriot Act surveillance authorities until late May.

Obama signed the “FISA Sunsets Extension Act of 2011,” which refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Surveillance authorities under that act were extended in part by amending the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act.

With Obama’s signature, the ability of the United States to access business records, conduct roving wiretaps and monitor individual terrorists is maintained until May 27. The administration has said it supports a longer extension, and the Senate next week will begin working on a three-year extension.

This is NOT a new paper; it was penned in 2003 and uploaded recently (to the best I can tell). However I was pleased with the analysis (besides not questioning 9/11 itself) and the emphasis for maintaing civil liberties through the courts in the least. 2003 was a much harder year to be “against the grain” than 2010 as it was only a year or so after the 9/11 attacks. I doubt the author of the paper would is pleased at the current state of affairs.

After September lIth. governments around the world have taken swift action to address what is now perceived as a world-wide threat of terrorism. The measures adopted are powerful and far-reaching. They also have the very real potential seriously to restrict civil rights and freedoms: the very rights and freedoms in the name of which the new anti-terrorism initiatives have been taken. While Courts have the power to ensure that these initiatives do not improperly infringe on individual rights and liberties. in recent judicial pronouncements. it appears that several high courts – specifically including the Supreme Court of Canada – are suggesting more, not less, judicial deference to government initiatives taken at this troubled time.

I found this the other day browsing around but unfortunately I cannot open or download the file. I am hoping someone out there has an account with this group Palgrave Connect. All the chapter contents seem to be very interesting. I somehow get the feeling the issue will say basically that the means will justify the end. See comments below.

The Impact of 9-11: The New Legal Landscape is the third volume of the six-volume series The Day that Changed Everything? edited by Matthew J. Morgan. The series brings together from a broad spectrum of disciplines the leading thinkers of our time to reflect on one of the most significant events of our time. With a foreword by the former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Senator Bob Graham, the volume’s contributors include Alan Dershowitz, Aziz Huq, William Weaver, and other leading scholars.

Countless prisoners are being denied justice under a federal statute whose intent was to reduce frivolous law suits, two prominent legal authorities say.

Law professors Margo Schlanger of Washington University, St. Louis, and Giovanna Shay of Yale indict the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act(PLRA) of 1996 for “undermining the rule of law in America’s prisons” by “preventing inmates from raising legitimate claims” against their keepers.

The professors trace the subsequent “dramatic decline” in prisoner law suits to the fact that “constitutionally meritorious cases are now faced with new and often insurmountable obstacles.”